MCP Server Box

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, whether templates are globally available, what happens on duplicate names/keys, or any rate limits. The example helps but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error conditions or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Example, Returns) and front-loads the purpose. The example is comprehensive but necessary given the complex fields parameter. While slightly longer due to the detailed example, every element serves a clear purpose in explaining the tool's usage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well on parameters but has gaps. It explains what the tool creates but doesn't describe the return value beyond 'dict: The created metadata template.' It also lacks behavioral context about permissions, error handling, and how this tool relates to other metadata operations in the system.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It clearly explains all three parameters (display_name, fields, template_key), provides a comprehensive example showing field structure with multiple data types (string, date, enum, multiSelect), and clarifies optional behavior for template_key. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a new metadata template definition') and resource ('in Box'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like box_metadata_template_get_by_key_tool or box_metadata_template_list_tool. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions required, or compare it to related metadata template tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.